Aircel-Maxis scam: SC threatens to seize 2G spectrum allocations if promoters don't appear in court
The Supreme Court on Friday proposed to cancel the 2G license granted to Aircel if Maxis owner T Ananthakrishnan, who bought the majority shares of Aircel, and its Director Ralph Marshal do not present themselves before it.
The Supreme Court on Friday proposed to cancel the 2G license granted to Aircel if Maxis owner T Ananda Krishnan, who bought the majority shares of Aircel, and its Director Ralph Marshal do not present themselves before it.
— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) January 6, 2017
A bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar said that Krishnan and Marshal will have to appear before the court on 27 January.
SC said Aircel spectrum to be seized & transferred in 2 weeks if controller & owners don't appear in court in connection with the case
— ANI (@ANI_news) January 6, 2017
Keeping in mind the interest of existing Aircel subscribers, the apex court also asked the Department of Telecom and Ministry of Information and Technology to devise ways to avoid adverse impact on Aircel subscribers by provisionally transferring 2G licence to others.
The SC also restrained earning of any revenue by using the 2G spectrum licences which were originally granted to Aircel, PTI said.
The Aircel-Maxis deal case also involve former Communications Minister Dayanidhi Maran, his brother and businessman Kalanithi Maran and others. As reported earlier, the Central Bureau of Investigation has chargesheeted Maran, his brother, Chennai-based firm Sun Direct TV, Krishnan, Marshall and the two accused firms — Maxis Communications Berhad of Malaysia and Astro All Asia Networks.
The chargesheet alleged that Dayanidhi Maran used his influence to help Krishnan buy Aircel by coercing its owner Sivasankaran to part with his stake.
It was alleged by Sivasankaran that Dayanidhi Maran favoured the Maxis Group in the takeover of his company. In return, he alleged, the company made investments through Astro Network in a company stated to be owned by the Maran family.
The chargesheet was filed under Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code and other relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
With agency inputs
Subscribe to Moneycontrol Pro at ₹499 for the first year. Use code PRO499. Limited period offer. *T&C apply
Disagreeing with govt can't be seditious, says SC; dismisses PIL demanding action against Farooq Abdullah
The top court was hearing a plea which referred to Abdullah's statement on restoring Article 370, which gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir, and contended it clearly amounts to a seditious act and therefore he is liable to be punished under Section 124-A of the IPC
The nation's highest court delivered a blow to the ex-president, who has been waging a protracted legal battle to prevent his tax records from being handed over to Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance
The apex court said the proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) will go on and but will not culminate into any final order on an amalgamation of FRL with Reliance